Toward Nucleating the Concept of the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): Perspective from the Principal Actors

Abstract

Wastewater resource recovery has been advocated for decades; necessary structural pathways were long-ago articulated, and established and emerging technologies exist. Nevertheless, broad wastewater valorization remains elusive. In considering implementation barriers, the argument is made that decision-makers focus on avoiding permit violations and negative publicity by embracing a conservative/safe approach-seemingly ignoring research on economic/environmental benefits. Conversely positing that economics is a primary barrier, we investigated, characterized, and described nontechnical socio-political barriers to realizing wastewater resource recovery. Principal actors in the Pacific NW region of the U.S. (representing a progressive populace facing stringent water quality regulations) were interviewed. Results revealed that economics were, indeed, the primary barrier to implementation/expansion of the WRRF concept. Consistent throughout interviews was a prevalent sense that the "cost of doing something (different)" was a principal consideration in resource recovery actions/policies. Moreover, "economics drives decisions," and "95% the bottom line is money. Show return on investment, it will get people's attention." Who pays was also a concern: "Government isn't going to pay. The states and Federal government won't give any grants, and we can't raise rates." Applying business case evaluations was seen as a pathway to actualizing resource recovery. Most encouragingly, the consensus was that resource recovery is a necessary future paradigm, and that real barriers are surmountable.

Opportunities to improve energy use in urban wastewater treatment: a European-scale analysis

“…An example is the implementation of co-digestion of the organic fraction of municipal waste (Mattioli et al 2017, Maktabifard et al 2018 to improve the organic load (and thus gas production) while integrating the waste and WWT chain, which are commonly regarded and managed as separate businesses. Promising options in this direction come from the view of the plant as a material (other than energy) recovery facility (Coats andWilson 2017, Breach andSimonovic 2018) that look at water reuse, nutrients and chemicals extraction and biosolids reuse. This shift in the perception of the plants is likely to start a competition between alternative 'recovery targets', while should also stimulate the development of detailed analysis of all the energy and mass fluxes within the plants.…”

“…Altogether, a growing stock of evidence indicates that wastewater can be valorised as a source of energy as well as materials, although non-technical limitations often hinder its large-scale implementation (e.g. Coats and Wilson 2017).…”

Contrasting stakeholder and scientist conceptual models of food-energy-water systems: a case study in Magic Valley, Southern Idaho

“…In representing complex interactions such as a FEWS, a modeller or scientist may miss or ignore key interactions that are crucial to real people in a certain landscape. One way to address this type of uncertainty is through involvement of key stakeholders in the modelling processes (d'Aquino & Bah, 2013;Refsgaard et al, 2007). Modelling with stakeholders has a variety of descriptive names: companion modelling, group model building, mediated modelling, shared vision planning, and participatory simulation have been widely implemented in natural resources management (Barreteau et al, 2012), which emphasizes the importance of involving stakeholders in the modelling process (Voinov et al, 2016;Voinov & Bousquet, 2010).…”

System Modeling, Optimization, and Analysis of Recycled Water and Dynamic Storm Water Deliveries to Spreading Basins for Urban Groundwater Recharge

“…While these trends favor MAR using recycled water, questions about costs and water infrastructure integration hinder these systems' greater adoption, suggesting the need for further system analysis. Monetary costs, or the otherwise absence of a compelling business case, are often a primary barrier for both recycled water projects (Bischel et al, ; Coats & Wilson, ; Hanson et al, ; West et al, , ) and MAR projects (Bekele et al, ; Maliva, ; Perrone & Rohde, ; Stefan & Ansems, ). Consequently, designing cost‐effective systems can be a planning priority for these projects to succeed.…”